Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add yellow rattle seed Rhinanthus minor to hay meadows A review of studies from the UK found that adding hay rattle seed helped other sown target meadow species to colonize and that more plant species were found when yellow rattle was present. A randomized, replicated controlled trial in the UK found that yellow rattle could be established on a pasture field by ‘slot seeding’.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F129https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F129Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:56:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to forestsA randomised, replicated, controlled study from Australia found that brown treecreeper numbers were higher in plots with large amounts of dead wood added, compared to control plots or those with less debris added.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F344https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F344Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow natural regeneration of ground cover beneath perennial cropsNatural enemies on crop trees and vines: Five studies (including one replicated, randomised, controlled test) from Australia, China, Italy and Portugal compared natural and bare ground covers by measuring numbers of natural enemies in fruit tree or vine canopies. Three found effects varied between groups of natural enemies, two found no difference. Two studies from Australia and France compared natural to sown ground cover and found no effect on enemies in crop canopies. Natural enemies on the ground: Five studies (including three replicated, randomised, controlled trials) from Australia, Canada, China, France, and Spain compared natural and bare ground covers by measuring natural enemies on the ground. Two studies found more natural enemies in natural ground cover, but in one the effects were only short-term for most natural enemy groups. Three studies found mixed effects, with higher numbers of some natural enemy groups but not others. Two studies compared natural and sown ground covers, one study found more natural enemies and one found no effect. Pests and crop damage: Four studies (three controlled, one also replicated and randomised) from Italy, Australia and China measured pests and crop damage in regenerated and bare ground covers. Two studies found fewer pests, whilst two studies found effects on pests and crop damage varied for different pest or disease groups. One study found more pests in natural than in sown ground covers. Crops studied were apple, grape, lemon, olive and pear.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F720https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F720Thu, 30 May 2013 11:41:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Aerobic training A randomised, replicated, controlled study in Norway found higher survival rates in salmon exposed to infectious pancreatic necrosis if they had undergone aerobic training. Interval training was more effective than continuous training. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F740https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F740Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:39:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to ponds We found no evidence for the effects of adding woody debris to ponds on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F814https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F814Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:09:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt certification One replicated, site comparison study in Ethiopia found that the risk of deforestation was lower in certified than uncertified forests. One controlled, before-and-after trial in Gabon found that when logging intensity was taken into account although tree damage did not differ, changes in above-ground biomass were smaller in certified than in uncertified forests.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1150https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1150Tue, 17 May 2016 16:23:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt community-based management to protect forests Two studies from Ethiopia and Nepal (including one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison) found that forest cover increased more in community-managed forests than in forests not managed by local communities. One replicated, site comparison study in Colombia found that deforestation rates in community-managed forests did not differ from deforestation rates in forests that were not managed by local communities, or in uninhabited national parks.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1152https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1152Wed, 18 May 2016 14:58:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt ecotourism We found no evidence for the effects of adopting ecotourism on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1173Thu, 19 May 2016 09:46:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt continuous cover forestry We found no evidence for the effects of adopting continuous cover forestry on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1179https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1179Thu, 19 May 2016 10:33:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt conservation grazing of woodland We captured no evidence for the effects of adopting conservation grazing of woodland. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1192https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1192Thu, 19 May 2016 11:53:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt protected species legislation (impact on forest management) We found no evidence of the effects of adopting protected species legislation on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1201https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1201Thu, 19 May 2016 13:21:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow primates to adapt to local habitat conditions for some time before introduction to the wild Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that reintroduced primate populations were smaller after 12-17 months and one study in Belize found primate populations increased five years after allowing individuals to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, alongside other interventions. One study found that a reintroduced population of black howler monkeys had a birth rate of 20% after they were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, Madagascar, Malaysia, French Guiana, South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to 12 years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Four studies in Belize, Brazil, Gabon, South Africa found that the majority of primates survived for at least four to 12 months. One study in Vietnam found that half of reintroduced pygmy slow lorises survived for at least two months. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that a majority of western lowland gorillas survived for nine months to four years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Three studies in Liberia and the Congo found that a majority of chimpanzees survived for at least three to five years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after allowing it to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. A study in Indonesia found that Sumatran orangutans that were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction performed less well than individuals that were directly released into the forest, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that after being allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions a pair of introduced Bornean agile gibbons had a similar diet to wild gibbons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:08:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow shrubland to regenerate without active management Five before-and-after trials (two of which were replicated) in the USA, UK, and Norway, found that allowing shrubland to recover after fire without any active management increased shrub cover or biomass. One replicated, paired, site comparison in the USA found that sites that were allowed to recover without active restoration had similar shrub cover to unburned areas. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found no increase in shrub cover. One before-and-after trial in Norway found an increase in heather height. One before-and-after trial in Spain found that there was an increase in seedlings for one of three shrub species. Two replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after trials in Spain and Portugal found that there was an increase in the cover of woody plant species. One before-and-after study in Spain found that cover of woody plants increased, but the number of woody plant species did not. One replicated, before-and-after study in South Africa found that the height of three protea species increased after recovery from fire. One before-and-after trial in South Africa found that there was an increase in vegetation cover, but not in the number of plant species. One before-and-after trial in South Africa found an increase in a minority of plant species.  Two before-and-after trials in the USA and UK found that allowing shrubland to recover after fire without active management resulted in a decrease in grass cover or biomass. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found an increase in the cover of a minority of grass species. One before-and-after study in Spain found that cover of herbaceous species declined. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found mixed effects on cover of wavy hair grass. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found no increase in forb cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled before-and-after trial in Spain found that herb cover declined after allowing recovery of shrubland after fire. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1679https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1679Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:08:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt ecotourism principles/create an ecotourism site We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adopting ecotourism principles or creating an ecotourism site. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1755https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1755Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:33:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt voluntary agreements to protect peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland habitats, of adopting voluntary agreements to protect them. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1798https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1798Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow sustainable use of peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland habitats, of allowing sustainable use. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1801https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1801Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:28:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt zero burning policies near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adopting zero burning policies near peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1856https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1856Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:54:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Airborne translocation of mammals using parachutes One study evaluated the effects of airborne translocation of mammals using parachutes. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in the USA found that at least some North American beavers translocated using parachutes established territories and survived over one year after release. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2466https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2466Wed, 03 Jun 2020 09:31:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow forest to regenerate naturally following logging One study evaluated the effects on mammals of allowing forest to regenerate naturally following logging. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that, natural forest regeneration increased moose numbers relative to more intensive management in the short- to medium-term but not in the longer term. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2634https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2634Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:49:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow only small-scale, traditional (artisanal) fishing One study examined the effects of allowing only small-scale traditional (artisanal) fishing in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Adriatic Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Adriatic Sea found that a marine protected area zone allowing only artisanal fishing activity for three years had higher overall commercial catch rates of five of seven species compared to unprotected areas openly fished. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2678https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2678Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:09:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow periodic fishing only One study examined the effects of allowing fishing only periodically in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Coral Sea (Vanuatu). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that protected areas fished only for short periods over an 18 month to six-year period, had greater biomass than openly fished areas and similar fish biomass as areas permanently closed to fishing for six years. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that protected areas only fished for short periods over an 18 month to six year period, had higher fish catch rates than openly fished areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2679https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2679Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:20:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt ecotourism principles/create an ecotourism siteWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of adopting ecotourism principles or creating an ecotourism site.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3025https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3025Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:46:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow plants to adjust to field conditions before plantingWe found no studies that evaluated the effects of allowing emergent vegetation to adjust to field conditions before planting in wetlands.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3349https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3349Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:56:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to protect seeds/plants One study examined the effects of adding woody debris to protect seeds/plants on grassland vegetation. The study was in Kenya. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Kenya found that sowing buffel grass seeds beside woody debris did not affect seedling survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3421https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3421Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:40:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to landscapes Six studies evaluated the effects of adding woody debris to landscapes on reptile populations. Three studies were in Australia, two were in the USA and one was in Indonesia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Four of five studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA, Indonesia and Australia found that areas with added woody debris had similar richness and diversity or richness or of reptiles, rare reptiles and snakes and lizards compared to areas with no added debris. The other study found that areas with added woody debris had higher reptile species richness than areas with no added debris. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Two of six replicated studies (including four randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Indonesia and the USA found that areas with added woody debris had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas with no added debris. Three studies found that areas with woody debris had a similar abundance of reptiles and snakes and lizards compared to areas with no added debris. The other study found that pastures with added timber had lower abundance of rare reptile species compared to pastures without timber, but that in pastures with added timber, reptile abundance was higher after 15 months than after 12 months. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3718https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3718Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:33:28 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue